Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[Moviefan-2]

The AR4 and AR5 predictions are both looking quite reasonable right now, and I provided a chart that proved the AR4 prediction to be doing fine.

Bull.

The chart you provided from your propaganda website had "adjusted" predictions, with adjustments that were made after the results were known and the IPCC's original predictions had been confirmed to have been spectacularly wrong. It was not a chart showing the IPCC's original predictions.

If you want to be a "denier" and reject the results that were reported by the IPCC, suit yourself. But it is a falsehood to say the predictions are "looking quite reasonable." The computer model projections were completely wrong.

 

[blackrock13]

That's a correct analysis of the chart, but it doesn't refute the point I made.

Take a look at the larger version of the figure on Page 34 of the IPCC's report:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf

All of the projections show the temperature skyrocketing upwards, from any starting point you want to use in the 1990s. The projections all show that temperatures should be significantly higher now than they were in 1997, 1998, or any other year in the 1990s.

Completely wrong.

'Significantly' is not the same as 'skyrocketing', nice back pedal.

All the projections do not show the temperature 'skyrocketing'; on neither the small chart or the larger chart. Repeating it will not make it any more true. All you saw was the increased slope of the graph, but spent little time analyzing the axis and and not understanding the significance.

 

[groggy]

All of the projections show the temperature skyrocketing upwards, from any starting point you want to use in the 1990s. The projections in that table all show that temperatures should be significantly higher now than they were in 1997, 1998, or any other year.

Completely wrong.

Did you even get to high school?
What's your highest level of education, grade 5?

Can you not read a graph?
Are you really that stupid?

Here, let me help you a bit.
Slide your finger along the bottom of the graph until you get where you think we are now. If you did it right you should be at the end of the red line. Now, here' the tricky part, you need to keep your finger there (and don't draw on your computer screen) and then draw yourself a line to the left hand part of the graph. That's the temperature scale. Now check the number on that scale and tell us how different it is from 1997 (and remember, 1998 is important only if you are basing your argument on cherry picking data).

Now, tell us what that temperature difference should be, from 1997 to today, based on your reading of that graph and explain to us how much hotter you think it should be.


If you can't even do that much you really are way too stupid to even be in this argument.

 

[basketcase]

Utter nonsense....

I'll call flat out bullshit on this. The consensus is the consensus, not because of a survey where you don't like the results but because it is the best theory to explain observations.

I guess I'm still waiting for your better theory to change the consensus.

 

[basketcase]

That's a correct analysis of the chart, but it doesn't refute the point I made.

Take a look at the larger version of the figure on Page 34 of the IPCC's report:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf
....

Seems the results on page 7 show the predictions based on anthropogenic CO2 are in line with observations and pg 34 also shows the observations withing the range of predictions.

Guess you are caught out as being full of shit again.

 

[basketcase]

Bull.

The chart you provided from your propaganda website had "adjusted" predictions, with adjustments that were made after the results were known and the IPCC's original predictions had been confirmed to have been spectacularly wrong. It was not a chart showing the IPCC's original predictions.

If you want to be a "denier" and reject the results that were reported by the IPCC, suit yourself. But it is a falsehood to say the predictions are "looking quite reasonable." The computer model projections were completely wrong.

You are doing a pretty good job of being a denier with your anti-scientific belief that scientists shouldn't learn more as they gather more evidence.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'll call flat out bullshit on this. The consensus is the consensus, not because of a survey where you don't like the results but because it is the best theory to explain observations.

The Oreskes paper was released in 2004.
The Doran paper was released in 2009.
The paper by Cook (the cartoonist) only looked at papers going up to 2011, and its findings were based on papers written from 1991 to 2011.

None of them included papers that considered the "observations" that the empirical results were different from the projections.

You are doing a pretty good job of being a denier with your anti-scientific belief that scientists shouldn't learn more as they gather more evidence.

LMFAO. You characterization of the propaganda website's revisionist history is that it's an example of people trying to "learn more"?

Even if that were true, it still means that Groggy's assertion that the IPCC got it right is completely false.

Slide your finger along the bottom of the graph until you get where you think we are now. If you did it right you should be at the end of the red line.

The red line only goes to 2001. Maybe you should have read the index.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Seems the results on page 7 show the predictions based on anthropogenic CO2 are in line with observations and pg 34 also shows the observations withing the range of predictions.

Guess you are caught out as being full of shit again.

See my response to Groggy in the above post.

 

[groggy]

The Oreskes paper was released in 2004.
The Doran paper was released in 2009.
The paper by Cook (the cartoonist) only looked at papers going up to 2011, and its findings were based on papers written from 1991 to 2011.

None of them included papers that considered the "observations" that the empirical results were different from the projections.

And why should they? We are still within the projections as I proved earlier.
Are your Heartland posts so old they didn't know about 2013 being the 4th warmest year on record and the last decade as the warmest decade?
Maybe you need to find some creationists who are a bit more current.

The red line only goes to 2001. Maybe you should have read the index.

Right, and the present date will be how far from the end of the red line? Less then a fingers width on your computer?
At least you're close to the answer now, so.....

Can you answer the question or not?
Based on the graph that you supplied, and which you said showed that we should be experiencing way warmer temperatures, what should the present change in global surface temperature be?
Is that too hard for you to answer?

 

[AK-47]

They were invited into a discussion to hear the contrarian point of view

They were not just invited to a one-time discussion, they are on the permanent American Physical Society's panel for Climate change. There are 6 members of that panel in total, 3 are global warming believers, the other 3 are global warming skeptics.

Right from their website: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf

More here: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/

Once again you're full of shit groggy

 

[groggy]

They were not just invited to a one-time discussion, they are on the permanent American Physical Society's panel for Climate change. There are 6 members of that panel in total, 3 are global warming believers, the other 3 are global warming skeptics. Right from their website: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf More here: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/ Once again you're full of shit groggy

That's another compelling argument mr gun.
A 'permanent panel'?

Are you sticking with that answer or would you like to call a creationist or lobbyist for expert advice?

 

[blackrock13]

They were not just invited to a one-time discussion, they are on the permanent American Physical Society's panel for Climate change. There are 6 members of that panel in total, 3 are global warming believers, the other 3 are global warming skeptics.

Right from their website: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-bios.pdf

More here: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/

Once again you're full of shit groggy

No one is claiming they are just invited for a discussion, but as I mentioned earlier, probably a response to the aged advise, keep your frineds close but your enemies closer. Talk about making shit up. The panel may be permanent, but their appointment isn't necessarily so. It's a real joy to watch you dance.

The Quadrant article is just a list of very careful worded questions based on AR4, little more. It's asking many questions on a somewhat dated report, but offering no answers. Just like MF2's ranting on about Mann and what has come about since that research.

 

[groggy]

No one is claiming they are just invited for a discussion. Talk about making shit up. The panel may be permanent, but their appointment isn't necessarily so. It's a real joy to watch you dance.

I'm looking forward to ak actually checking the lists of names for the committees on the APS website, then finally noticing the word 'workshop' on the top of his 'permanent panel' document.
Seems its not only graphs they can't read....

 

[AK-47]

That's another compelling argument

I stopped reading after that.

Like I said, you're full of shit!! And stop building strawmen with creationism or lobbyists

 

[AK-47]

No one is claiming they are just invited for a discussion

Actually, thats exactly what groggy was insinuating

keep your frineds close

Your what??

The panel may be permanent, but their appointment isn't necessarily so

They wouldnt put their bios and pics up on their website if it wasnt a long-term appointment, smartypants

It's a real joy to watch you dance

Oh, the irony :biggrin1:

 

[blackrock13]

Actually, thats exactly what groggy was insinuating


Your what??


They wouldnt put their bios and pics up on their website if it wasnt a long-term appointment, smartypants


Oh, the irony :biggrin1:

Groggy didn't claim any such thing, your read into it what you wanted.

Grammar Nazi raise his ugly head again.A sign of desperation. If you can't figure that out we give you too much credit for being smart.

You're confusing irony with pathos. Your posts make many others shake their heads in disbelief in you lack of understanding of basic science and gullibility of denier quackery.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And why should they? We are still within the projections as I proved earlier.

You proved no such thing. Your propaganda graph was comprised of "adjusted" predictions that had been completely rewritten after the results were known.

In fact, the IPCC acknowledged in its most recent report that the results were not what the IPCC had actually predicted.

Right, and the present date will be how far from the end of the red line?

"Right?" In your previous post, you said the red line ends at "where we are now."

In fact, this is 2014, not 2001. Go buy an up-to-date calendar.

And learn to deal with the fact that the dramatic increases in temperature that your Mann-made chart said would occur after 1997 and 1998 haven't materialized.

 

[blackrock13]

I stopped reading after that.

Like I said, you're full of shit!! And stop building strawmen with creationism or lobbyists

Hmmm. When you have creationists, Heartland mercenaries, and British Peerage as front men for the deniers, it certainly does put the movement into question.

You shouldn't stop, as you have in the past, posting articles you clearly haven't read in advance. If you had, you would have learned that the panel is permanent, not the appointment.

 

[blackrock13]

You proved no such thing. Your propaganda graph was comprised of "adjusted" predictions that had been completely rewritten after the results were known.

In fact, the IPCC acknowledged in its most recent report that the results were not what the IPCC had actually predicted.



"Right?" In your previous post, you said the red line ends at "where we are now."

In fact, this is 2014, not 2001. Go buy an up-to-date calendar.

And learn to deal with the fact that the dramatic increases in temperature that your Mann-made chart said would occur after 1997 and 1998 haven't materialized.

Just to narrow it down about, which graph of the hundreds published, are you referring to? Then explain how it was adjusted. You've recently shown how badly you read graphs so I just want to see if your understand the methodology behind the one you are referring to. It crystal clear you don't understand the methodology of scientific research.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just to narrow it down about, which graph of the hundreds published, are you referring to? Then explain how it was adjusted. You've recently shown how badly you read graphs so I just want to see if your understand the methodology behind the one you are referring to. It crystal clear you don't understand the methodology of scientific research.

Now, you're just throwing around baseless insults. Unlike some people on this thread, I knew that the Mann-made graph cited earlier was from 2001, not 2013.

As for Groggy's propaganda chart, you can get him to post it again. I don't spend my time searching the propaganda websites.

If he does post it, you will see the chart shows "adjusted" predictions to account for the new premise that the expected warming went into the deep ocean. The predictions for the surface temperatures were then "adjusted."

But, of course, these "adjustments" were only made after the actual studies of the Earth's temperature were already publicly reported.

Anyone can look good making retroactive "predictions" about past events where the outcomes are already known. For example, you don't have to be a brilliant historian to "predict" whether or not Hitler will win World War II.

--

As for the science, one of the clear standards for a credible scientific theory is that it should allow you to always make reliable predictions.

You can't really say that about the man-made CO2 premise, can you?